Saturday, August 21, 2010

The Gene Myth

Biological variation is, in part, transmitted from parent to progeny. Tall individuals tend to have tall offspring, fast individuals tend to have fast offspring, and so forth. This transmission process is key to the action of natural selection. Those trait variations that are successful in transmitting themselves to the next generation, by definition, survived while those that failed would disappear from the population. So long as traits are transmitted, evolutionists argue that natural selection is inevitable.

In other words, whatever it is that determines your traits is also transmitted to your offspring. Therefore, if you have evolutionarily successful traits then you will have more offspring, and they will receive your successful traits.

But how are the traits defined and transmitted? Darwin didn’t quite know how but in the twentieth century it seemed obvious—via the genes. According to the merger of modern genetics and evolution, it was all in the genes. They determined your traits and they were passed on to your offspring. This view fit evolutionary theory and was quickly accepted as an unquestionable scientific fact.

There is only one problem: it is false.

The fact that our genes are practically identical with the chimpanzees genes should have been a sign to evolutionists that their gene-centric view was problematic. How could the chimp and human be so different if their genes are so similar? Nonetheless, evolutionists proclaimed the great similarity as evidence that there must be an evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps.

In fact the biological evidence is clear: genes are only part of a far more complicated story than what evolution envisioned. As Stuart Newman explains:

Genes, which are composed of DNA, directly specify the sequences of RNA molecules and indirectly, the amino acid sequences of proteins. Before there were multicellular forms, single-celled organisms evolved for as much as two billion years driven, in part, by genetic change, as well as by establishment of persistent symbiotic relationships among simpler cells. During this entire period no cellular structure or function was specified exclusively by a cell’s genes. The protein and RNA molecules produced by cells associate with each other in a context-dependent fashion or, in many cases, catalyze chemical reactions (generating lipids, polysaccharides and other molecules), whose rates depend on the temperature and composition of the external environment. So the population of molecules inside the cell can vary extensively even if the genes do not.

It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true—the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.

The deployment of information in the genes, moreover, is itself dependent on the presence of certain RNA and protein molecules in the cell. Since, as described above, the composition of the cell’s interior and the activity of many of its proteins depend on more than just the genes, the portion of the genes’ information content that is actually used by the cell is determined, in part, by non-genetic factors. So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.

As Newman explains, the gene is nothing close to how evolution envisioned it. The gene myth is yet another example of evolution’s failed expectations. It seems that inevitably evolution’s interpretations turn out to be wrong as it has produced a steady stream of false predictions. Evolution is certainly the best counter indicator in the life sciences.

151 comments:

"As Newman explains, the gene is nothing close to how evolution envisioned it. The gene myth is yet another example of evolution’s failed expectations."

Hey, I have a great idea for an experiment to test these claims. Let's transplant the genome of species A in a cell of species B and see whether the resulting individuals will resemble species A, species B, or something else. If you are correct, then the result should not look like the genome donor species A, right?

Too bad such an experiment hasn't been done yet. Or has it? Why, yes indeed it has! and it shows that the species does look like the genome donor, thus falsifying your claims.

Abstract:"As a step toward propagation of synthetic genomes, we completely replaced the genome of a bacterial cell with one from another species by transplanting a whole genome as naked DNA. Intact genomic DNA from Mycoplasma mycoides large colony (LC), virtually free of protein, was transplanted into Mycoplasma capricolum cells by polyethylene glycol–mediated transformation. Cells selected for tetracycline resistance, carried by the M. mycoides LC chromosome, contain the complete donor genome and are free of detectable recipient genomic sequences. These cells that result from genome transplantation are phenotypically identical to the M. mycoides LC donor strain as judged by several criteria."

The fact that our genes are practically identical with the chimpanzees genes should have been a sign to evolutionists that their gene-centric view was problematic. How could the chimp and human be so different if their genes are so similar? Nonetheless, evolutionists proclaimed the great similarity as evidence that there must be an evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps.

Thank you for giving me something to chuckle about this AM. Scraping the bottom of the barrel of incredulity, are we?

Let me ask you, how could the chimp and human be so similar if their genes are so similar? Or would that be a silly question?

troy,Ironically, pertaining to the Human Genome Project, it was Craig Venter himself who said science has “learned nothing from the genome other than probabilities.”and that as far as medical benefits is concerned, he called it useless information. Fortune magazine even call it “the great DNA letdown”.

Epigenetics suggests how much context matters, and reminds us that the mere code of our genetic sequence cannot explain who we are and who we will become.

Personally, I think there's more than meets the eye and I agree with Adam Keiper that we should take the exciting findings of epigenetics as an invitation to better understand the peculiar kind of creature we are — recalling that the answers to the deepest questions about being human lie not in our genes but in ourselves.

Espagnat: Epigenetics suggests how much context matters, and reminds us that the mere code of our genetic sequence cannot explain who we are and who we will become.

Studies of heritable epigenetic factors across generations tend to show the influence of acquired traits waning over the course of just a few generations. In organism development, the most critical aspect of environment is that provided by the mother, whether that is the uterus, the egg, or the cell itself in the unicellular case described above. Ultimately, the most important determinant of that environment is the maternal genome (unless we introduce hazardous externally sourced chemicals). Venter's experiment showed that while intracellular chemical factors can influence daughter cell morphology, species-level genetic differences enforce chemical changes that over several generations yield a cell indistinguishable from the genetic donor species.

Cornelius Hunter: Darwin’s argument was circular, but it was foundational to his theory of evolution.

It's not circular, but a proposed hypothesis. From the hypothesis, Darwin deduced empirical implications, compared them to the available evidence, and proposed new areas of investigation. A century-and-a-half later, the hypothesis is still bearing fruit.

Cornelius Hunter: How could the chimp and human be so different if their genes are so similar?

Um, humans and chimpanzees are very similar, just elaborated deuterostomes — tubes with appendages for stuffing food into one end. Microevolution. But there is obviously more to it than a simplistic and naïve gene-centric view.

John said:This experiment trumps the wishful thinking of political journalists.

It's not just journalists who are optimistic about epigenetics. The entire science community is excited about epigenetics. Research experts in the epigenetic field from Epigentek have developed a new, breakthrough approach for the identification of the "sixth DNA base".The discovery of a new nucleotide may make biologists rethink their approaches to investigating DNA methylation.

I never said epigenetics wasn't exciting. It's a field that is immensely important to our understanding of development (seeing as the whole DNA library is passed down to every cell). It's just that many of the most important aspects of the environment of a developing organism are under strong genetic influence themselves (including significant maternal influence).

Venter's experimental result is a clear sign that we shouldn't be digging up the corpse of Lamarck just yet.

"Ironically, pertaining to the Human Genome Project, it was Craig Venter himself who said science has “learned nothing from the genome other than probabilities.”"

How is that ironic, since science is all about probabilities of alternative hypotheses? But I guess you mean that Venter, and many others, expected some more certainty about causes of genetic diseases. Par for the course for big science projects - expectations are always too extreme. Otherwise no money.

"Epigenetics suggests how much context matters, and reminds us that the mere code of our genetic sequence cannot explain who we are and who we will become."

Who would disagree with that? Epigenetics is important - but not that important, as Venter's experiment clearly shows. It's probably more important for eukaryotes than the prokaryotes in venter's experiment, and may play a very different role in unicellular as opposed to multicellular organisms, since epigenetics plays a major role in cell differentiation.

These comments are valuable because they illustrate evolutionary thinking. It is not just you saying this. This is the way evolutionists always respond, and the evolutionists here, including yourself, are saying that Darwin's argument is not circular.

The argument is, of course, prima facie circular. Darwin takes as his premise that "when a cirripede is parasitic within another cirripede and is thus protected, it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace." That would constitute evolutionary change, albeit not terribly significant since it is the loss of a structure, rather than the gain of something new.

He then continues, reinforcing his premise: "This is the case with the male Ibla, and in a truly extraordinary manner with the Proteolepas". That was, of course, a false claim. Darwin did not know that that was "the case". It may have been the case, but Darwin did not know it to be the case. He was assuming evolutionary change in order to argue for evolution.

He continues, in case there was any doubt, for a third time stating his evolutionary premise as a given: "in the parasitic and protected Proteolepas, the whole anterior part of the head is reduced to the merest rudiment attached to the bases of the prehensile antennae."

The fact that he later will use the loss of such structures (even if his evolutionary assumption was true) as justification for concluding that evolution can similarly *create new* structures, as though the loss and gain of structures were equivalent, makes the argument that much more absurd.

We should not be surprised that evolutionists are in denial of such obvious facts. This illustrates evolutionary thinking. Evolutionists claim their theory is a fact without justification, and then deny such obvious facts as the fallaciousness of evolutionary arguments such as this one.

"So long as traits were transmitted, natural selection would be inevitable."

Indeed. Now, where was the falsification that traits are transmitted? There's a lot of empirical data against you.

"According to the merger of modern genetics and evolution, it was all in the genes. They determined your traits and they were passed on to your offspring. This view fit evolutionary theory and was quickly accepted as an unquestionable scientific fact.

There is only one problem: it is false."

What specifically is false?

That genes determine traits?ORThat genes are passed to offspring?

It seems like the argument is that because the linkage of genotype to phenotype is complex, that genes don't determine traits (ergo the 'Gene Myth").

Of course geneticists recognize the linkage between gene and trait is often complex. Anyone care to define PENETRANCE?

"Most biological traits (such as height or intelligence in humans) are multifactorial, influenced by many genes as well as environmental conditions and epigenetic expression. Only a statistical measure of association is possible with such polygenic traits."

"Scientists have developed a new way to identify the hidden genetic material responsible for complex traits. The breakthrough ultimately could lead to a deeper understanding of how multiple genes interact to produce everything from blue eyes to blood pressure problems."

Or traced by mutli-individual gene sequencing efforts.

Maybe Dr. Hunter would like to visit his local hospital, and inform some patients suffering from genetic diseases that it isn't all in the genes, that that's the 'Darwinian Gene Myth', and that traits aren't inherited.

What I'd be curious to know is what does CH think is a non-circular scientific hypothesis? Just about every day CH tells us why he thinks evolution is bad science. And of course it is well-established by now that CH is unlikely to provide an alternative hypothesis to evolution (or indeed even how one would start a research program to develop a hypothesis). Even though he is a Fellow of the Discovery institute, he doesn't seem very interested in "discovering" anything new.

But what does "good science" look like to CH? What's an example, perhaps from the non-biological sciences, of what he considers to be well thought out, well supported science? Since he won't offer us an alternative hypothesis himself, it would be helpful to know what the "good" benchmark is.

I don't expect CH to answer - he rarely responds to these kinds of questions - even though they are of course very reasonable questions. But I think it's important for those perhaps new to this blog to realize just how limited and restrictive CH's thinking really is on these matters.

I'd also like to pose another question - is CH a good ambassador for the Discovery Institute? Does his musings here help or hinder ID?

In case it's not obvious, in attempting to present some sort of fallacious reasoning on the part of Darwin, Cornelius himself is attempting to build a fallacious argument by which Darwin's actions in the past would have somehow prevented the entirety of science from discarding a "myth" which he thinks is obviously "false."

Apparently, Cornelius thinks if he could only point out some flaw in Darwin's reasoning we would have no choice but to discard 150 years of research across multiple disciplines by thousands of other scientists.

But, again, this is fallacious reasoning, as scientific theories do not depend on the reasoning of one person. They depend on ongoing independent research, peer review, etc.

Apropos of Dr Hunter’s plastering the accusation of “begging the question” on poor old Darwin, I went rummaging in the archives of this blog for one of his classic discoveries of logical fallacy, namely, the fallacy of Contrastive Reasoning.

I haven’t found the relevant comment yet, but in the meantime I came upon the precise point in history when the good doctor opened his blog to comments.

It was Wednesday, August 26, 2009. The topic was Ribosome More Complicated Than Thought, and there was one comment.

===Of course it's not circular. He examining the evidence in light of the hypothesis.===

No, he is presupposing what he is concluding.

===You just think it's circular because the evidence fits!===

No, the evidence does not fit, except when it is assumed to be the result of evolution, as Darwin does.

It is good to achieve clarity, even in disagreement. Darwin makes an unambiguous circular argument and evolutionists deny it. We definitely have clarity here.

Circular reasoning is presupposing what you later will conclude. Darwin is arguing for evolution. Specifically, in this case, his target is the law of compensation. He will conclude it doesn't hold in the wild. His premise is that:

"when a cirripede is parasitic within another cirripede and is thus protected, it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace."

This is a false claim. It may be true or it may be false, but Darwin does not know it to be true. But the claim, aside from being false, necessarily entails that the law of compensation is false. He then concludes that the law of compensation is false. That's circular reasoning.

Darwin reinforces this by restating his premise a total of three times. He writes:

"This is the case with the male Ibla, and in a truly extraordinary manner with the Proteolepas". Again, it is a false claim that necessarily entails that the law of compensation is false. He was assuming evolutionary change in order to argue for evolution.

And yet again, Darwin writes:

"in the parasitic and protected Proteolepas, the whole anterior part of the head is reduced to the merest rudiment attached to the bases of the prehensile antennae."

Again, it is a false claim that also necessarily entails that the law of compensation is false.

The evidence does not "fit" evolution, it is being presupposed to be a consequence of evolution.

Janfeld writes:

===What I'd be curious to know is what does CH think is a non-circular scientific hypothesis? ...But what does "good science" look like to CH? ... I don't expect CH to answer ===

A non-circular scientific hypothesis does not presuppose it is correct. Similarly, a scientist does not interpret evidence according to his hypothesis, and then claim the interpretation as evidence for the hypothesis. But then again, that's obvious.

I can explain problems with evolution, but don't expect evolutionists to acknowledge them. Evolutionists are in denial, because for them evolution must be a fact.

Are there going to be more Parts to The Gene Myth, or is this it? Because this looks to have more non sequiturs than the last one, but I wanted to wait until you finished the series to evaluate the reasoning. Can you state in a concise sentence or paragraph what the content of "the gene myth" is?

Really? So your whole argument (the 'gene myth') is that Darwin - with no knowledge of genes and an incorrect understanding of both heredity what types of variation are heritable - made an argument that you consider circular?

Because, and let's be realistic here, that has no bearing at all on current evolutionary biology, in which both Darwin's incorrect ideas about heritable variation and the nature of heredity have been superceded. Darwin did not actually recognise mutation as it is currently understood to have importance in evolution, hence the early argument between mendelists and darwinists. Nobody currently investigating evolutionary biology holds a 'darwinian' view of heredity.

As Newman explains, the gene is nothing close to how evolution envisioned it.

Forgetting the strange anthropomorhism, what does this mean? Nothing close? All Newman does here is reject a solely deterministic model of genetics. Yes, the reality is complex. The only thing evolutionary theorists are 'guilty' of, is exploring a simpler model of genetics before exploring a more complex one.

"when a cirripede is parasitic within another cirripede and is thus protected, it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace."

This is a false claim. It may be true or it may be false, but Darwin does not know it to be true."

No, that is an observation. One could go scrape up some barnacles oneself, and make the same observation.

It argues against the law of compensation-no other structure is enhanced because of the increase available nutrients with the lack of a carapace. Darwin then proposes if the law of compensation is violable in one direction, it might be in the other.

Right or wrong,what is the 'Gene Myth?'

Is it some point other than what Darwin said 150 years ago, prior to the discovery of genes?

Or something other than one quote showing the relationship of genotype to phenotype is complex?

What is the gene myth? Do they not exist? Do genes not code for traits? Are traits uninheritable?

Ok, well, if this is all three posts, I really don't understand what argument you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing several loosely related claims at once. We started out talking about Chapter 5 of the Origin of Species, and how natural selection relates to the law of compensation. Then, you somehow got out of that text that Goethe didn't believe in large-scale change (this is false, he just believed that evolution was efficient, but that's the proposition you want to defend so let's forget about Goethe). In your most recent post, you started out by saying you were going to explain why Darwin believed in large-scale change, but you ended up talking about non-genetic factors in the internal chemistry of prokaryotes.

Does that about summarize things?

The law of compensation doesn't limit development to small-scale change, only change that maximizes benefit to the organism within the resource ("nutriment") constraints of its environment. There's nothing about animals in captivity being "anchored by design" as they "drift about a bit." The distinction between wild and captive isn't even brought up in the discussion on "the law of compensation or balancement of growth."

Furthermore, Darwin doesn't mention cirripedes to illustrate that there is no limit on the scale of evolution, only to illustrate that "natural selection is continually trying to economise in every part of the organisation [organism]." His argument would be circular if he were making the claims you're putting in his mouth, but he isn't, and it's not. For a barnacle to lose its carapace when it inhabits a larger organism is efficient, because those barnacles don't have to waste nutrients on creating shells. If the host organisms were to leave, the unshelled barnacles would gradually die from exposure and be replaced by a new strain of shelled barnacles. Whether nature develop big things or only reduce big things while developing small things or only reduce things big and small or only reduce or develop small things--none of that is in this chapter, you're just reading "anti-macroevolution" into Johann Goethe, a respected naturalist who accepted evolutionary theory.

Now, after having taken this gnarled road to arrive at your premise that large-scale change is a Darwinian fantasy, you drift off into a discussion of how traits are passed one generation to the next before asserting that the proposition "it's all in the genes" is "false." (How brave of you to defy the scientific community, so brazenly convinced that "it's all in the genes" is "an unquestionable and scientific fact.")

Seriously, your last three posts were labeled "The Gene Myth," and across all three of them the only sentence I can identify explaining what The Gene Myth is consists of "it's all in the genes." If that's your beef, that evolution is more complicated than "it's all in the genes"--and not that macroevolution is impossible, or that all useful adaptation is necessarily accompanied by wasteful adaptation--then we have no issue.

But no, of course, we finally get around to Homo sapiens and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are so different from people, but there genes are so similar! Clearly, the genes are lying to us. I was eager to hear your explanation as to what truly accounts for the vast differences between humans and chimpanzees, but then you went back to the Archean era some three billion years before the first mammals. Here, you enlightened us as to the influence of non-genetic factors such as "the temperature and composition of the external environment" on the molecular chemistry of single-celled life.

How this explains the differences between humans and chimpanzees is not mentioned. How this shows that Darwin's argument for macroevolution is false is not brought up. And how this proves that all living organisms are "anchored by design" is hardly considered relevant enough to comment on. As for "the gene myth," as far as I can tell the only "far more complicated story" to tell is that "the external environment" had a hand in evolution, which is exactly what The Origin of Species was about to begin with.

This is one of the most ridiculously illogical and meandering attacks on Darwinism I've ever read, and I have read a few. You seem to be more interested in accusing the scientific establishment of being unscientific than objectively scrutinizing the nature of gene variation. If you want to mount the case that the conceptual basis of modern genetics and evolutionary biology is all pernicious myth, or that the principles of the scientific method would vindicate intelligent design but for the "denial" bias of every researcher everywhere, you're going to have to do a lot better than the last two paragraphs of a chapter out of The Origin and an interview with a developmental biologist whose only criticism of Darwin is that his incrementalism was too restrained*. Have you even read the articles you're citing as supportive of your views? Because taken in context, they're diametrically opposed to most of what you've said here.

*Here's Dr. Stuart Neumann, the man you cite as a credible source, arguing in favor of large-scale change in the same exact article you've linked us to here: "While it has been conventional to argue that organisms very different from members of their originating population are likely to fare poorly in the struggle for existence, we now have numerous examples in animals and plants in which such 'hopeful monsters' have come to occupy new ecological niches rather than competing to the death with their relatives. So in principle, Darwin’s model of gradual change due to the selective advantage of minor variants is not required to account for the evolutionary transformation of organisms from one complex form to another.

"For most present-day organisms, however, redundant developmental pathways conspire to stabilize the generation of a standard phenotypic outcome. The fact that organismal forms are typically resistant to saltational change was the basis Darwin’s incrementalism. But while the organisms of our experience do not often undergo major morphological reorganization, the circuitry that stabilizes development is itself a product of evolution. More ancient organisms, which had fewer 'canalizing' mechanisms, were more developmentally plastic and prone to large-scale changes. The inescapable conclusion of these 'EvoDevo' arguments is that phylum-scale evolution preceded evolution on the scale of species."

You see? Neither Goethe, Darwin, or Neumann are arguing for a limit on large-scale evolutionary change. Goethe argued that changes would be balanced, not that balanced changes over time would not lead to large differences. And Neumann is arguing that the plasticity of organisms has itself evolved over time due to the development of more efficiently organized developmental pathways (for more on the interdisciplinary study of evolution and development, see Evolving Evolution, NYRB: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/may/11/evolving-evolution/ )

===No, that is an observation. One could go scrape up some barnacles oneself, and make the same observation. ===

No, Darwin did not observe Ibla lose a carapace that it once had, prior to becoming parasitic. This is a good example of evolutionary thinking. To evolutionists, evolution is so unavoidable and unquestionable that an unjustified inference becomes an "observation."

===So your whole argument (the 'gene myth') is that Darwin - with no knowledge of genes and an incorrect understanding of both heredity what types of variation are heritable - made an argument that you consider circular? ===

No, Darwin made an argument that is prima facie circular. The fact that I spelled it out in some level of detail is not an indication that it is debatable or uncertain, it is because I am attempting to communicate with evolutionists, and evolutionists are deeply in denial.

=== So your whole argument (the 'gene myth') is that Darwin - with no knowledge of genes and an incorrect understanding of both heredity what types of variation are heritable - made an argument that you consider circular? ===

No, Darwin made an argument that is prima facie circular. The fact that I spelled it out in some level of detail is not an indication that it is debatable or uncertain, it is because I am attempting to communicate with evolutionists, and evolutionists are deeply in denial.

Or you don't have the faintest understanding of how science approaches the testing of hypotheses, and are deeply in denial of the reality which numerous people have pointed out to you.

===Then, you somehow got out of that text that Goethe didn't believe in large-scale change (this is false, he just believed that evolution was efficient, but that's the proposition you want to defend so let's forget about Goethe). ===

No, my point was that Goethe's law of compensation was a problem for Darwin's large-scale change. Darwin's evolutionary theory was very different from Goethe's notions.

===There's nothing about animals in captivity being "anchored by design" as they "drift about a bit." The distinction between wild and captive isn't even brought up in the discussion on "the law of compensation or balancement of growth." ===

Good point, I'll edit that.

===Furthermore, Darwin doesn't mention cirripedes to illustrate that there is no limit on the scale of evolution, only to illustrate that "natural selection is continually trying to economise in every part of the organisation [organism]." His argument would be circular if he were making the claims you're putting in his mouth, but he isn't, and it's not. For a barnacle to lose its carapace when it inhabits a larger organism is efficient, because those barnacles don't have to waste nutrients on creating shells. If the host organisms were to leave, the unshelled barnacles would gradually die from exposure and be replaced by a new strain of shelled barnacles. Whether nature develop big things or only reduce big things while developing small things or only reduce things big and small or only reduce or develop small things--none of that is in this chapter, ... ===

Well not exactly. Darwin is not merely trying to illustrate that "natural selection is continually trying to economise in every part of the organisation [organism]." He is arguing that the law of compensation, while reasonable for domestic productions, does not hold in nature. But I agree the blog does not do justice to Darwin's narrow point. More later ...

===His argument would be circular if he were making the claims you're putting in his mouth, but he isn't, and it's not. For a barnacle to lose its carapace when it inhabits a larger organism is efficient, because those barnacles don't have to waste nutrients on creating shells.===

I'll try again. Darwin states as a given that Proteolepas lost its carapace when it became parasitic. Did Darwin observe Proteolepas losing its carapace or did he infer this?

I'll try again. Darwin states as a given that Proteolepas lost its carapace when it became parasitic. Did Darwin observe Proteolepas losing its carapace or did he infer this?

Got it! He inferred it. Now, what precisely is fallacious about that inference? And what precisely is fallacious about incorporating that inference into a larger argument?

If Darwin had said, “By the way, I am assuming for the sake of argument thatwhen a cirripede is parasitic within another cirripede and is thus protected, it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace” would that have satisfied you?

Cornelius Hunter: I'll try again. Darwin states as a given that Proteolepas lost its carapace when it became parasitic. Did Darwin observe Proteolepas losing its carapace or did he infer this?

David: Got it! He inferred it. Now, what precisely is fallacious about that inference? And what precisely is fallacious about incorporating that inference into a larger argument?

What Cornelius is saying is that the parasitic barnacle could have been an act of special creation with no ancestors that were carapace owners. The creator just gave them the vestiges of a head and otherwise made them good barnacles. Why? Not ours to ask. Of course, if you accept that last sentence, you are probably not a scientist.

Darwin is saying that the changes required to produce a parasitic barnacle from a standard form are significant in effect, but are minor as achievements (loss and reduction of structure present in an ancestor), so that the reader familiar with variability documented within domestic and wild populations will agree with him that his conclusion is valid. He would argue that his is a better inference than the assumption of limits to change (and he was right - see the "short dog" mutation, black coloration that then introgressed into North American wolves, etc., etc.). Therefore this "law" of compensation should not be used elsewhere to attack evolution.

Of course, Darwin is still overlooking the point made by Cornelius above. Perhaps the creator put parasitic barnacles within more typical barnacles as an artistic statement, or perhaps to fool those so brazen as to try to acquire knowledge from the natural world into thinking evolution had occurred when in fact it had not. Given the creator's stance on education in the Garden of Eden, that's not so far-fetched.

Dr Hunter might also have noted that Darwin assumed that Ibla and Proteolepas were related to other barnacles. All inferences based on taxonomic criteria are hypotheses, and presumably Darwin should have pointed that out.

===What I'd be curious to know is what does CH think is a non-circular scientific hypothesis? ...But what does "good science" look like to CH? ... I don't expect CH to answer ===

A non-circular scientific hypothesis does not presuppose it is correct. Similarly, a scientist does not interpret evidence according to his hypothesis, and then claim the interpretation as evidence for the hypothesis. But then again, that's obvious.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my question correctly, but what I was after from CH wasn't a definition, but an actual example of this "good" science, perhaps from another scientific discipline. In other words, name a scientist or a scientific theory/law where this kind of "good" science is demonstrated.

"So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used"

Yet, more evidence for the cell being a tightly integrated and highly complex system. The next few years will be wonderful as scientists attempt to further unravel the multiple levels of information and complex networking within the living cell. It certainly makes sense that more is happening in the cell than was understood because of the incredible abilities of living cells to function as they do. From a robotics and information technology standpoint one could ask what it would take to duplicate something like a cell... we are closer to landing a man on pluto than fully understanding the complexities of the cell. Evolutionists are so far from comprehension that they still clearly lack an appreciation for that complexity. Too many are still stuck in the 19th century Darwinian view of the warm little pond fairy tale.

Cornelius, take note of a few things. Even the authors of Uncommon Descent deleted the links to this series of articles.That should tell you something. Their credibility went up a tad for this. Also note that even your usual defenders are mostly silent in this thread. I think that even they realize that your premise is completely wrong, and even if it weren't, it would still be completely irrelevant.

You've had a few posts that would be A+ articles if you just changed "This is how evolutionists work," to "This is how scientists work." You've had a few posts that are F- articles, no matter what. You've had many in between. This series is so far below anything you've posted before, that your only option to save face is to apologize and move on. Or at least stop digging yourself deeper by continuing to defend it. I won't waste any space here elaborating the fallacies in this series; others have done that amply. You've scraped though the bottom of the barrel on this one, and you're six feet into the ground below.

It's like saying that if Einstein made a circular argument to make a point about relativity, (that was actually correct) to answer an opponent's charge, (that was actually incorrect) Then all of Relativity is built on a house of cards and we should toss it all out and start over.

It only harms the case for ID to see its adherents making such ridiculous, irrelevant arguments.

John said:Venter's experimental result is a clear sign that we shouldn't be digging up the corpse of Lamarck just yet.

I see that you are keeping an open mind about the rebirth of Lamarckism but still pessimistic. There are so many people in the scientific community who are optimistic and they have good reasons. Check out the following article from MIT.

The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring, according to two new studies. If applicable to humans, the research, done on rodents, suggests that the impact of both childhood education and early abuse could span generations. The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring.

CH - Yes. If I interpret measurement A according to theory X, and then use that interpretation as confirming X, then that is circular.

So if a measurement is made on the amount of complexity and irreducibility on a biologcal component (e.g., let's take the flagellum) and this is then interpreted as confirming ID, then that is a circular argument then?

===So if a measurement is made on the amount of complexity and irreducibility on a biologcal component (e.g., let's take the flagellum) and this is then interpreted as confirming ID, then that is a circular argument then? ===

Let's reword for clarity. If an IDer presupposes that structure A *was* designed, and since structure A works with structure B, therefore structure B was also designed, and so now structure B serves as powerful evidence for design, then that would be circular, don't you agree?

===What Cornelius is saying is that the parasitic barnacle could have been an act of special creation with no ancestors that were carapace owners. The creator just gave them the vestiges of a head and otherwise made them good barnacles. Why? Not ours to ask. Of course, if you accept that last sentence, you are probably not a scientist.

Darwin is saying that the changes required to produce a parasitic barnacle from a standard form are significant in effect, but are minor as achievements (loss and reduction of structure present in an ancestor), so that the reader familiar with variability documented within domestic and wild populations will agree with him that his conclusion is valid. He would argue that his is a better inference than the assumption of limits to change (and he was right - see the "short dog" mutation, black coloration that then introgressed into North American wolves, etc., etc.). Therefore this "law" of compensation should not be used elsewhere to attack evolution.

Of course, Darwin is still overlooking the point made by Cornelius above. Perhaps the creator put parasitic barnacles within more typical barnacles as an artistic statement, or perhaps to fool those so brazen as to try to acquire knowledge from the natural world into thinking evolution had occurred when in fact it had not. Given the creator's stance on education in the Garden of Eden, that's not so far-fetched. ===

Good explanation except that I don't say "Not ours to ask". I simply ask for an honest accounting of assumptions.

Even though it belongs to another post I will repost it here:Dr. Hunter you are misrepresenting what Darwin is saying in the paragraph which is clear form the sentence you omitted before your citation:

I suspect, also, that some of the cases of compensation which have been advanced, and likewise some other facts, may be merged under a more general principle, namely, that natural selection is continually trying to economise in every part of the organisation.

The only thing Darwin wants to demonstrate is that under the assumption that the ToE is true The Law of Compensation can be explained by natural selection. And he provides examples for that. Neither are these or the paragraph meant to prove the ToE in general nor natural selection in particular are true.

Yes. If I interpret measurement A according to theory X, and then use that interpretation as confirming X, then that is circular.

David's words:

But, in the passage in question, Darwin didn't do that, did he?

Hunter’s reply:

Yes, Darwin certainly did do that.

That’s not helpful. I was hoping you would provide quotes from Darwin’s passage to support your claim instead of just repeating your claim.

As second opinion pointed out, Darwin interpreted observations of barnacle morphology according to the working assumption of natural selection, while contrasting that interpretation to what the “law of conservation” might predict. However, he did not use that interpretation as a confirmation of natural selection.

Darwin did “interpret measurement A according to theory X,” but he did not “use that interpretation as confirming X.” Therefore, his argument is not circular.

All you have to do now to support your claim of circular reasoning is quote the words that Darwin used to confirm natural selection by hypothesizing natural selection.

===Janfeld: So if a measurement is made on the amount of complexity and irreducibility on a biologcal component (e.g., let's take the flagellum) and this is then interpreted as confirming ID, then that is a circular argument then? ===

CH: Let's reword for clarity. If an IDer presupposes that structure A *was* designed, and since structure A works with structure B, therefore structure B was also designed, and so now structure B serves as powerful evidence for design, then that would be circular, don't you agree?

Why reword it, I think it's quite clear. And after all it is precisely based on the syllogism that you came up with yourself! Nice trick - instead of the answering the question (of your original devising), you simply change the question to suit your needs. Nice!

“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes in Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or to view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.” Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent

"If we take the genome of one animal and put it into the egg of another - either nothing develops- no survivors- or it resembles the egg donor."

Where do you get these ideas?

There are limited examples of somatic cell nuclear transfer across species, but a cow egg and guar (ox) nucleus produced an ox, wildcats have been born from domestic feline eggs and wildcat nuclei. Whales, and frogs have been done also. The donor nucleus (genome) specifies what develops. Venter famously demonstrated this in bacteria, with his synthetic genome transfer.

"Venter famously demonstrated this in bacteria, with his synthetic genome transfer."======================

You're refering to the article which came out not long ago claiming Dr Craig 'Menegle' Venter had created artificial life ???

So when does plagiarism of already existing information and inserting it into an already existing living cell become artificial life which was titled, "“First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created" justly become titled artificial life ???

Venter’s lab took existing genes from bacteria and performed some reverse engineering on it, then inserted it back into the hardware of a living cell. He wasn't forced to abide by any Darwinian principles which demands that the explanation for the genetic code itself is blind chance and necessity resulting from nothing more than a happy chemical accident of chemicals and physics. Any way you look at it, wasn't it really intelligent designing at work there ??? If that is not the case, then should we assume that Venter’s lab found it more worthwhile to plagiarize chaos ???

Eocene said "So when does plagiarism of already existing information and inserting it into an already existing living cell become artificial life which was titled, "“First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created" justly become titled artificial life ??? "

Eocene, as usual, you are refuting an argument that exists only in your imagination. If you were to have read Robert's post with a 5th grade reading comprehension level or higher, you would see that what he is saying is that if you take a donor genome and place it in the egg of another species, it is a member of the donor species that develops, if anything develops at all. His post that you are referencing had nothing to do with evolution, artificial life, abiogenesis, or anything else. It was a response to JoeG's absolutely preposterous claim that "If we take the genome of one animal and put it into the egg of another - either nothing develops- no survivors- or it resembles the egg donor." (I'd like to think that Joe made a typo; It's hard to believe that even he could be that dense and ignorant of genetics) The only reason he referenced Venter's genome transfer is that the genome that was implanted is what developed. Please try to read people's arguments instead of scanning for buzzwords to jump on.

Derrik:It was a response to JoeG's absolutely preposterous claim that "If we take the genome of one animal and put it into the egg of another - either nothing develops- no survivors- or it resembles the egg donor."

That is a fact- ask any embryologist.

Also a bacteria is not an animal...

Take feline DNA and put it into an egg of a dog- see what happens.

My bet is nothing survives.

IOW try something with totally different organisms and get back to me...

RobertC:There are limited examples of somatic cell nuclear transfer across species, but a cow egg and guar (ox) nucleus produced an ox, wildcats have been born from domestic feline eggs and wildcat nuclei.

Perhaps these are not different species after all.

IOW Robert it appears this says more about our classification than anything else.

A gaur and domestic cow belong to the same Genus- they are basically the same.

Really Derick ??? Maybe you should do likewise and direct your righteous indignation elsewhere. You did exactly that on the other thread with regards my comments regarding Genesis. Maybe it would be simpler to assign yourself over to the atheist kamp since you have ZERO respect for the Biblical creation account for which Jesus Christ himself quoted, indicating he believed what was written.

What I commented on with regards Dr Franken-Organism Venter was right on the money. The fact you didn't like it is typical of an atheist posing in sheeps clothing as a Theist Evolutionist.

"Joe, I tried to give you an out, but instead you just continued to blab and demonstrate your ignorance of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and of genetics in general."===================

You tried out of the goodness of your heart to give him a way out ??? Sure !!!

Do you ever slam atheists for what could be called blasphemy against someone you claim to serve , even tho you never actually explain how or why a god you believe in used such chaotic circumstances to arrive at what is otherwise the perfect order of the natural world around us ???

Your off topic objections aside, the point is the genome-(whether bacterial or animal) directs the phenotype of the organism.=====================

There was nothing off topic. You brought up venter's name ( not me ), championing his pseudo-artificial lifeform creation. I merely responded. I'm not responsible if you don't like the outcome of the actual truth of what he did or didn't do in this case. That responsibility is yours and you made that quite clear.-------------------------

Yes and if such men have their way in the creation of Franken-Organisms to combat the imperfect Human consequences of what are nothing more than clear behavioral issues as opposed to dealing with the actual causes for their existance in the first place, then yes I'm against this man's actions. The things this man wants to create will have catastrophic consequences on an already unbalanced natural world, so yes I am defensive for things that have potential permanent irreversible harm to nature.

===That’s not helpful. I was hoping you would provide quotes from Darwin’s passage to support your claim instead of just repeating your claim. ===

I did. What is it about "it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace" that you don't understand?

===As second opinion pointed out, Darwin interpreted observations of barnacle morphology according to the working assumption of natural selection, ...===

Fine, but you cannot then use that interpretation in an argument for evolution.

===... while contrasting that interpretation to what the “law of conservation” might predict. However, he did not use that interpretation as a confirmation of natural selection.===

It was an argument against Goethe's teleological law of compensation and for Darwin's anti teleological version of evolution.

===Darwin did “interpret measurement A according to theory X,” but he did not “use that interpretation as confirming X.” Therefore, his argument is not circular.===

No, Darwin is reckoning with an idea that is inconsistent with the theory he is trying to advance. He builds an argument in which he uses as a premise an interpretation of barnacles according to *his* theory. The fact that the law of compensation is the foil that Darwin has in view here does take away from the fact that his reasoning is circular.

Eocene bellowed: "Really Derick ??? Maybe you should do likewise and direct your righteous indignation elsewhere. You did exactly that on the other thread with regards my comments regarding Genesis."

Eocene, surely you're not referring to the post on the fossil fungus controlled ant" article, where, after you accused me of 'assuming you were a YEC,' I clearly showed you why my comment made no assumption about you or anyone else's beliefs about the timeframe of Genesis at all, and that to the contrary, my guess was that you were an not a YEC?

Or are you referring to something else? Can you specifically point out an example?

"Maybe it would be simpler to assign yourself over to the atheist kamp since you have ZERO respect for the Biblical creation account for which Jesus Christ himself quoted, indicating he believed what was written."

Eocene, it is you who makes a mockery of the text by distorting it beyond all recognition to reconcile it with the modern understanding of the universe. You yourself call part of the creation account ridiculous. You still maintain that the account "agrees with scientific chronological order," even when it is demonstrated to you that almost no part of the story lines up with the actual order in which things arose. Interpreting Genesis as a literal historical account in light of what we now know makes it the object of ridicule to non-Christians. Jesus often referenced parables in his teachings. Are we to conclude that the Good Samaritan was necessarily an actual, historical individual just because Jesus started the story with a matter-of-fact: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho..."

"It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation."

Eocene said "Do you ever slam atheists for what could be called blasphemy against someone you claim to serve..."

This is a blog about evolution and Intelligent Design. When someone does make unfounded inferences about religion, I do comment. I also comment when someone makes ludicrous statements about reality. I try not to 'slam' anyone. But sometimes a slight bit of ridicule is the appropriate response for ridiculous statements; especially when they are very demonstrably *wrong*. And what are you calling 'blasphemy'? Advocating science? Being inquisitive? Methodological Naturalism? Presenting evidence for one's position? Not denying reality in favor of your interpretation of the creation story? None of those are wrong in any sense of the word.

Eocene, your comments are getting less and less rational. I think your lack of care in reading and understanding other's posts is a large contributor to this.

On an unrelated note, In one post you refer to the "perfect order of the natural world around us," but in the *very next post*you call it "an already unbalanced natural world." Which is it - perfectly ordered, or already unbalanced?

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

"On an unrelated note, In one post you refer to the "perfect order of the natural world around us," but in the *very next post*you call it "an already unbalanced natural world." Which is it - perfectly ordered, or already unbalanced? "======================

The natural world was created perfect and remains balanced if left untouched or at the very least respected by humans. Neither has happened and our Global environment is close to being screwed beyond repair. Your flipant attitute exposes you down to your atheism unterhosen. Had you actually been a true Christian, you would have agreed that God created the natural world perfect, even if you still thought he used Evo-mechanics.

It had everything to do with the subject since he's the knucklehead who brought up the stupid subject. The fact that you didn't like my response is tough. Your above Childressish response ("blah blah blah nazi blah evil scientists blah atheist chaos blah!") does indeed expose your own absence of maturity.

Does the cloned mouflon look like a mouflon (genome donor) or a domestic sheep (egg donor)? What does it resemble? Did its genotype determine its phenotype? Does it resemble a domestic lamb, as you claim it should?

The mouflon (Ovis aries orientalis[1] group) is a subspecies group of the wild sheep Ovis aries. Populations of Ovis aries can be partitioned into the mouflons (orientalis group) and urials or arkars (vignei group).[2] The mouflon is thought to be one of the two ancestors for all modern domestic sheep breeds.[3][4]

Venter's experiment has everything to do with what you've said. It demonstrates the genome, and not mystery factor x controls the show.

And:1) Not every animal in the same genus is 'identical.' Species means something.

2) The experiments show the donor genome controls the appearance, body plan, color, etc., of the animal. It matters not that they are similar animals.

More distant cloning to date fails for reasons that have nothing to do with this point, and more to do with immune compatibility, mitochondrial/genomic compatibility etc.

The quote on Page 53 is intensely misleading-as it is meant to be. It suggests the experiments have proceeded successfully, that indeed a cat nucleus and a dog egg have produced a dog. This is false. What is produced is a pile of mush. In the few successes, the progeny are specified by the donor genome.

"It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation."

"Geez are you just going to ignore the geneticists who support my claim?"

Yes. I see only one quote from an Italian creationist. No context, no defense, no knowledge of Hox genes, or refutation of the experimental demonstration that genes determine body plan and genome codes for phenotype. Got any thing else? Maybe something with some facts? Some point?

I mean, seriously, in reply to the demonstration that genome controls a host cell, you state they started with a genome and a cell.

In response to the pictures above, you say they are the same genus or species, or both dogs.

Your original statement:

"If we take the genome of one animal and put it into the egg of another - either nothing develops- no survivors- or it resembles the egg donor."

"Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation."

That says a few percent of known genes control form generation. Umm. Yeah-isn't that the opposite of your point? What is the prediction-that most of known genes should control form generation? Lol. Silly stuff.

JoeG: "If we take the genome of one animal and put it into the egg of another different type of animal - either nothing develops- no survivors- or it resembles the egg donor."

If by 'type' of animal, you mean another Genus, then yes, this has been unsuccessful-the embryos die (which renders "or it resembles the egg donor") superfluous.

This is why I find the Design of Life Quote:

"Placing foreign DNA into an egg does not change the species of the egg or embryo. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate to produce hybrids.)"

Is so wrong. It is simply a lie. It should read:

In every case where interspecies nuclear transfer has succeeded, the species of the egg and embryo match that of the genome donor. (These successes are between related species). Further, in all intraspecies cases, the breed, etc. of the progeny matches that of the genome donor. Nuclear transfer between more distant species has failed to produce viable progeny.

Note also there is no logic here-you're using the technical failure of experiments to try to argue against the power of genes over phenotype. It simply isn't proof. If you had a cat genome transferred into a dog egg, an you got a dog or a hybrid, that'd be something. But alas, no.

Please also note we have already established the closeness of the relation is totally irrelevant to the discussion-in successful cloning, the gender, breed or species, body size, shape, color, etc. is determined by the donated genome.

"RobertC:That says a few percent of known genes control form generation.

controlling influence- learn how to read..."

Are you kidding me? That's your come back? 'Control' vs. 'controlling influence.' Yeah, I totally misread that one, tough guy. You're the one that used a quote that says a few percent of known genes control (oh wait, exert controlling influence over) form in defense of your misguided notion that genes don't determine body plan.

By now, after all of the intervening craziness, I will be surprised if Dr Hunter even bothers to look at it.)

Cornelius Hunter said...

David:

===That’s not helpful. I was hoping you would provide quotes from Darwin’s passage to support your claim instead of just repeating your claim. ===

I did. What is it about "it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace" that you don't understand?

I understand "it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace” alright, but I don’t construe it as the conclusion of the argument by Darwin in your quoted passage.

Recall your formulation:

Yes. If I interpret measurement A according to theory X, and then use that interpretation as confirming X, then that is circular.

As I said earlier, "it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace” is a supporting point that assumes arguendo that Ibla and Proteolepas have lost structures as a consequence of being parasitic barnacles. Quite a reasonable assumption, but not a conclusion of an argument.

As second opinion pointed out,

The only thing Darwin wants to demonstrate is that under the assumption that the ToE is true The Law of Compensation can be explained by natural selection. And he provides examples for that. Neither are these or the paragraph meant to prove the ToE in general nor natural selection in particular are true.

For you to say in response,

Fine, but you cannot then use that interpretation in an argument for evolution.

is not a rebuttal, because you haven’t shown that Darwin’s argument in the quoted passage is an argument for evolution. You haven’t rebutted our position that it is an argument about entailments of natural selection.

Bear in mind that this is Chapter 5 of Origin, entitled “Laws of Variation.” Chapter 4, entitled “Natural Selection,” has already dealt with arguments for. ####################################

Now my response:

===As I said earlier, "it loses more or less completely its own shell or carapace” is a supporting point that assumes arguendo that Ibla and Proteolepas have lost structures as a consequence of being parasitic barnacles. Quite a reasonable assumption, but not a conclusion of an argument.===

Darwin asserts, three times, that the carapace was lost. That assertion entails evolution. Agreed?

And I thank you for your patience in discussing this issue with me. Yes, I agree in part with your final point. Darwin did assume evolution (arguendo) when he said “…it loses more or less completely it own shell or carapace…” and “…the whole anterior part of the head is reduced to the merest rudiment…”

I still don’t see this as circular, for the reasons I and others have repeatedly given, but I am content to respectfully rest my case.

“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes in Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or to view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.”Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent

Biologists know the role of individual genes, say, Hox genes in determining body plan. They have experimentally perturbed them and observed their controlling influence over body plan.

Biologists have also inserted entire genomes into foreign cells, recovering the traits of the donor of the genome.

And again, I'm not interested in Jonathan Wells and his Italian creationist colleague, unless you care to make some point. Simply dropping their names isn't exactly an argument of any sort.

And ID friend Denton's "It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it" is not exactly persuasive in the face of evidence. Its complicated, therefore falsified? There is interplay with the cell?

So what makes a fly a fly and not a horse if not its genome? Some Vital spark?

"Gene expression is regulated but there isn't any evidence that genes determine the type of cell to be formed."

Umm, Joe-your last post introduced Pax6 as the determinant of eye formation!?! Does Pax6 not specify the type of cell(s) to be formed?

And numerous experiments have knocked down, knocked out, or overexpressed a gene to induce the differentiation of embryonic stem cells into distinct lineages. Moreover, microarray and proteomic approaches allow profiling of what genes are activated in differentiation.

Joe said: "Geez if there are instructions within the genome then the current theory of evolution is nonsense."

I don't even know why I try sometimes. What does that even mean? I recognize some english words in there, but are you actually suggesting that 'evolutionists' don't think that genes are sets of instructions? And how in the world would that mean evolution is nonsense?

Joe, I'll ask you again what several people here have asked you that you haven't responded to:

If physiological traits are passed from parent to offspring, why is that? What is the mechanism of this heredity? is it something other than DNA? Just answer this simple question, please.

Of course the type of eye is a trait. What in blue blazes do you think 'trait' means?

"And Derick, I understand that evotards think that genes are sets of instructions."

??????

Change "evotards think genes are sets of instructions" to "geneticists and everyone even the slightest bit knowledgeable about genes think genes are sets of instructions," And you're well on your way to a coherent statement.

"I say the instructions are embedded in the cell(s), including the DNA"

For the umpteenth time Joe, WHAT PART OF THE CELL, BESIDES THE DNA MOLECULE, CARRIES THE INSTRUCTIONS?

"The problem is there isn't any evidence for that claim. (That genes are sets of instructions.)"

Joe, now I'm starting to understand your "no evidence that chemical processes are responsible for evolution" stance. If, in your book, there's not even evidence that genes are sets of instructions for building proteins, then there's not evidence for anything, is there?

Of course the type of eye is a trait. What in blue blazes do you think 'trait' means?

The color is a trait.

We can actually study that trait and what affects it.

But we cannot study what type of eye-

Where are you getting your definition of trait from?

Change "evotards think genes are sets of instructions" to "geneticists and everyone even the slightest bit knowledgeable about genes think genes are sets of instructions," And you're well on your way to a coherent statement.

“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes in Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or to view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a very small fraction of all known genes, such as developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.”Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/